Fact Check: "Defense Secretary claims renaming ships removes politics from military"
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk, a Navy ship named after the gay rights activist and politician, to the USNS Oscar V. Peterson, honoring a Medal of Honor recipient from World War II. Hegseth stated that the renaming was part of an effort to "take the politics out of ship naming," asserting that ships should not be named after political activists (Washington Post, Fox News). This decision has been framed within a broader context of the Defense Department's shift away from diversity and inclusion initiatives, which Hegseth has criticized since taking office (Military.com).
Hegseth's comments suggest that the renaming is not politically motivated, but rather a return to honoring military figures. He emphasized that "people want to be proud of the ship they’re sailing in" and that the new name reflects a focus on military service rather than activism (Fox News, Military.com). However, the renaming has sparked significant backlash, particularly from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and political figures who view it as a politically charged move against the recognition of diversity in the military (Washington Post).
Analysis
The claim that renaming ships removes politics from the military is partially true. Hegseth's assertion that the renaming is intended to eliminate political considerations from ship naming reflects a specific ideological stance that prioritizes traditional military values over contemporary social issues. However, the context of this decision is inherently political. The renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship named after a prominent figure in the LGBTQ+ rights movement, can be seen as a politically motivated action aimed at reversing the previous administration's efforts to honor diversity (Fox News, Military.com).
Critics, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, have condemned the renaming as a "shameful, vindictive erasure" of figures who fought for civil rights (Fox News). This indicates that the renaming is not merely a neutral act but one that engages with ongoing cultural and political debates about representation in the military. The claim that the renaming is devoid of political implications is undermined by the backlash and the broader context of Hegseth's policies, which have included efforts to roll back diversity initiatives within the Department of Defense (Washington Post, Military.com).
Conclusion
The verdict is Partially True. While Hegseth's intention to rename the ship may stem from a desire to focus on military figures rather than political activists, the action itself is deeply intertwined with current political dynamics and cultural debates. The renaming is not free from political implications, as it reflects a broader agenda that seeks to diminish the recognition of diversity within the military.
